A Bad Night for Charlie Boy

As related by the ever entertaining Guido.

Wonder whether it was Mark Oaten who found him?

The Nauseatingly Self-Absorbed Post

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

Spent quite a lot of yesterday stroking my chin and pondering life, the universe and everything (and I mean life, the universe and everything rather than the crappy book by the over-rated Douglas Adams). Partly because last week left me with one or two things to think about, but mainly because I had two day's worth of hangover to contend with and frankly doing anything other than sitting still and thinking was a bit painful.

One of the things that crossed through my mind was exactly what I am doing with this blog. Reading some of the previous posts, there is a level of anger and misanthropy that I don't feel in my day to day life. Sure I remain irritable and the smallest things can really piss me off, but the evolution of this blog into a collection of hectoring posts (particularly against our *beloved* political class) and little else is mildly surprising to me. No intention of changing the content of this blog, mind, but it was originally meant to be a little more eclectic than the way it has turned out.

For example, I have a post floating around in my head about how the lyrics to Morrissey's Irish Blood, English Heart make me feel patriotic, which is no mean feat given I feel no great bond with my home country. In fact, I would argue Morrissey's song would make a much better National Anthem that the dirge like, monarchy worshipping pile of toss that we currently use. I also have a blog about how much I love living in London, in spite of the tube, the number of people stopping me in the street and in spite of the exorbitant price of a pint because of the number of wonderful buildings and places. Seriously, go to St Paul's Cathedral and take a look. Regardless of your religion, it is awe inspiring. Go inside, and look at the ceiling. Feel the history in there, feel the passion. And if you still aren't convinced that there are things in London worth enduring the hundreds of minor irritants for, then all you have to do is leave the Cathedral and walk across the Millenium Bridge to the Tate Modern. I could write about how I think The Girl In The Fireplace is one of the most poetic and romantic stories I have ever encountered, in spite of being both Saturday night TV and being science fiction. But I don't write those posts. Instead I go onto the BBC website, see a story on there about something that gets under my skin, and spend 5 minutes venting about it online. Which makes this blog both good and bad - good that I have a random outlet for random anger. Bad that I am too lazy to put more varied posts on this site. So today's naval gazing aside, don't expect any changes or variety on The Appalling Strangeness. The standard post will say something like "John Prescott is a cunt." Mainly because he is.

But that got me thinking about something else. The use of profanity on this blog. My original thought was not to swear on here. As anyone reading this post will be aware, that has changed somewhat. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, as the Moai points out, the best of the right wing blogs have no issue with using swear words, so why should I? Also, in my day to day life I have no issue with swearing. The fact that I have no real accent (the closest to describing how I speak is received pronunciation) means I tend to be able to get away with being a little foul mouthed on occasion. So if I swear when I am speaking, it seems only natural to swear when I am blogging. But the real reason is this - I swear because sometimes profanity is the best way to describe someone. Take the statement "John Prescott is a cunt." Now I could say that Prezza is a cad, a bounder, an oaf, an ignorant fat pig, a misogynist, a lazy cliche, a talentless nadir for an administration that is now renown for lack of competence. And all those things would be true. But it is much more punchy, and effective, to say he is a cunt. I appreciate that some people find that word appalling (I have friends who refuse to say it) but it perfectly sums up how I feel about that pathetic bloater of a man.

But any road, that is enough jabbering from me. I am off to watch the tele', go for a walk, and maybe find something on the BBC website to rant about...

The Fat Of The Land

As well as the appointment of a surprisingly fit Minister for Fitness, the government is waking up to what is becoming known as the obesity time bomb (like the pensions time bomb, but with more pie-eating).

Ho-hum, just another load of Nu-Labour guff designed to distract the media from Blair's desperate clinging to power. The numbers are terrifying, as is the potential impact on the NHS. But Blair and the Minister for Fitness won't actually do anything about it. Because ultimately there is nothing they can do.

The wonderfully illogical Dr Susan Jebb:

"People don't choose to be obese. Everyone knows what to do, but when they get into a supermarket, they don't put that into action."

Sorry love, but they do. People do choose to be obese. Jebb actually states that - when the people are in the supermarkets they don't put what they know about healthy eating into action. In other words, they choose not to do what, healthwise, they should.

What Jebb is trying to say is that people do not want to be obese. However, they choose not to do anything about it. It may be a passive, rather than active, choice - but it is their choice after all. It may be incredibly difficult to do, and diets may be terrible to stick to, but people still choose to lose weight. Or not.

So let's not piss time and money away on this Minister for Fitness pile of toss. If you want to tackle obesity, then start at an early age. Educate kids at school how to eat healthily, how to exercise, and why they should eat healthily and exercise. Make it a habit from a young age, so when the kids grow up they chose to be healthy and eat properly. It is called education - educating children so they make the correct choices when they grow up.

And as for those who are obese - fuck 'em. They need to make the choice to change their lives. If they make it, fair play to them. If they don't, well, they are not going to be around for long enough to increase the pension time bomb. It is about personal choice, and no Nu Labour Minister for Fitness is going to make a blind bit of fucking difference.

Inheritance Tax

This gem of a blog was flagged to me by the Moai this morning. And the post on Inheritance Tax got me thinking. Of course, most blogs already have posted on this, but fuck it. This blog is all about my opinions, so I will put in my two cents in as well. It may have been said elsewhere, and it may have been said in a more concise or witty way but, you know what, I don't care.

Tax in itself is an evil, but a neccessary evil. Inheritance Tax is just plain evil. You are taxing people for dying and for having money to leave behind.

Don't get me wrong, Inheritance Tax probably won't affect me directly. I don't have any kids (that I am aware of), and most of my salary is pissed away in pub toilets meaning my legacy to the world will be a pickled liver. Sure, my parents do have some money but I have every faith that my Dad will find a way to minimise the impact of inheritance tax. After all, he hates giving money away to anyone, let alone a grasping government.

But the tax itself is just plain wrong. Think about your money. You are paid your salary each month, and pay income tax and national insurance (it is a tax, just with a different name). You buy something, and pay VAT. Or, if it is a house, Stamp Duty. And at the end of the year the tax man will probably claim you have underpaid your tax for the year, so you pay tax yet again. And when you die, if you are relatively prosperous (ie with an estate of £285,000 - something that would not even get you a studio flat in Central London), you pay tax yet again. Now don't know how tax works in detail but if you pay inheritance tax, that money has already been taxed at least four times before. If Blair et al want to see why we complain about stealth taxes then should read the above.

And what about the ethical dimension? Suppose I lost my watch and saw a watch on a dead man. What would people say if I went up and took the watch off the corpse and walked away? ie if I robbed from the dead. Because, that is all Inheritance Tax is. It is robbing from the dead, and robbing from the bereaved. Utterly immoral.

A Treasury spokesman (sorry, spokesperson) is quoted on the BBC as saying:

"Anyone who wants to abolish it needs to explain exactly how they plan to fund the £3.6bn cost - the equivalent to more than 1p on income tax, or 18p on petrol duty, and almost double what we are spending this year on counter-terrorism and security."

What sort of half baked crap is that? Let us follow that train of thought - we cannot abolish any tax because we don't know how to replace the funding. I'm sorry, but what the fuck? How about reducing spending?!?! I realise that is too much for the tax and spend Gordon Brown but... And just because something is difficult to replace doesn't justify it in the first place. Imagine the Allies after World War Two saying "you know what, it is going to be difficult to replace the Third Reich so you know what, perhaps the Third Reich was OK in the first place!" It is the same, numb headed, half baked logic.

Inheritance tax is wrong, and should be abolished, preferably through a reduction in spending. For once in his trivial, pathetic life Byers has said something worth hearing...

Prime Minister Reid

A wonderful non-story from the BBC: Reid is raising his profile to contest any leadership election with Brown. And - controversially - Blair may be supporting him!

Is Blair pushing/allowing Reid to take the limlight? Of course he fucking is. Would he favour Reid as Labour leader/Prime Minister once he has gone? Of course he fucking would. Jesus, give me strength! I think Blair would prefer Cameron to be his successor rather than Brown (something that looks increasingly possible).

Aside from anything else, Blair is ideologically much closer to Cameron than Brown.

It Seems Too Easy...

...someone defending democracy in the Labour Party. By slagging off the Tory Party. Ho-hum, but who would have thought that they would be a Labour Supporter?

Let us look at what is said.

They get a choice of two stooges put forward by their MPs and their conferences have been Nuremburg rallies since well, since Nuremburg rallies.

Say what you like about Cameron and Davis, but I do not think either one of them is a stooge. They both fought eloquent and different campaigns for the leadership. Ok, I think we elected the wrong guy, but it was democratic for party members. Let me tell you how I know - as a member of the Tory Party, I voted in that leadership election.

And the assertion that Tory Party conferences are like the Nuremberg rallies is somewhere between stupid and utterly offensive. Christ, in this century we should be able to get over the whole "oh, if you are a Tory then you are a Nazi." Because we are not. In the same way that it would be stupid and offensive to call a Labour party member a Stalinist. And whilst the Tory Party conferences are often idiosyncratic, at least we don't eject pensioners for having an opinion.

Of course for most Tory members, the lack of democracy in their party is not a problem, since most of them don't believe in democracy anyway.

Errr, I dare say I know far more Tory members than you and I have yet to meet one who does not believe in democracy. We may not agree with you, but that does not make us undemocratic. In fact, surely disagreeing is key to democracy?

The Tory leadership elections/procedures have not always been as democratic as they could have been, but as Longrider points out in the Comments, that is a decision of the Tory Party. And is also an issue that has been addressed. And until Hague won the leadership, the Tory leadership procedures had a great track record of giving the leadership to electable figures. Unlike the Labour Party. Since World War Two, the Conservative Party has produced six leaders (Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major) who the wider electorate have seen fit to elect. The Labour Party has managed three (Attlee, Wilson, and Blair).

Dear Christ, he's at it again.

Sir Ian Blair, that is. The only man, aside from the EU Jaguar Mountain and Ming the Merciful, who can make his namesake, our dear leader, appeared poised, in control and charismatic. For Sir Ian has said that here in London, we can leave our doors open for the first time in 25 years.

I'm sorry, what? What in the name of all that is holy is this walking lobotomy talking about now?

Christ on a trike, Ian, I live in Westminster - one of the poshest areas of London. In fact, my residence is not that far from your offices in *New* Scotland Yard. This area is filled with PCSO's, armed officers and general beat police. I would argue that, owing to the massive police presence, this is one of the safest areas in London. Much more so than Haringey - at least according to the people I know who live there. And do I leave my front door open? Do I bollocks. The door to my flat is double-locked when it is not occupied. And that is typical of just about everyone I know who lives in this area and this city.

I don't know what planet you are on, Sir Ian. And I don't know what you are trying to achieve with these idiotic comments. But Jesus, man, you are supposed to be in charge of the Met when there is an unprecendented level of terrorist threats to this city (and to this country). I suggest that you shut up and get on with your job of leading the Met, rather than spouting off about some weird pipe dream.

100th post - and I got spam as a present!

Sent to my yahoo account. Subject "Respond Immediately Please":

"Dear friend,

Thanks for spending your time to go through this proposal, even though we do not know each other. It would have been more formal for a transaction or business of this magnitude should have commenced properly with a formal meeting between you and us to enable both parties know ourselves, have a fore knowledge of the nature of the business, discuss and acquaint ourselves with the responsibilities and functions of both parties and appropriate shares accordingly.

Let me start by first introducing myself properly to you. I am financial advisor on offshore and real estate investment and management with a private security & finance company in Thailand. My company work for
expatriate community here in Thailand and neighbouring countries. I came to know of you in my private search for a reliable and reputable person to handle this confidential transaction, which involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to a foreign account requiring maximum confidence.

The proposition is this: A Foreigner, Eng. Al-Akram Bin Abdullah an Iraqi Oil Merchant/Contractor with the Thailand National Petroleum Corporation, lodged the sum of $19.5 Million USD with our company. Upon
Maturity, I have sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply, after a month I sent a reminder and finally discovered from his contract employers (TNPC) that Mr. Abdullah died in war in Baghdad last year. Ever since no close relative or family has come forward to claim the money deposited with us. Therefore, my colleague and I, who are the direct fund managers, have decided to move/transfer this fund into a nominated foreign account, for future investment. To this regards, we sincerely request for your immediate assistance and co-operation for our mutual benefit.
1. I will forward to you copies or the deposit certificate and agreement
2. I will issue to you a Transfer Authorization of the Consignment,
3. We shall guide you up in all that we will do in ensuring that we claims this consignment as soon as possible.
You should rest assured that no one will question it because all financial deposit Certificates and transfer authorization pass my desk for final approval. To facilitate a smooth transaction, we have agree on the
following : 20% of the money for you as reward, 10% For expenses on hotel , flight tickets and any other, While, 70% shall be for us {I and my colleague} All these will be worked out as soon as we get your interest and acceptance. Upon the receipt of your mail message, send to me the following:
Your private telephone and fax number for easier communication and to enable me fax to you the documents concerning the consignment. This is a sensitive and private business, The knowledge of which should be restricted , therefore do not discuss it with a third party, and bear it mind that these funds is not terrorist or drug money. I am assuring you of a 100% risk free transaction.

While awaiting your prompt reply, please contact me on these emails: xxxx or xxxx

Best Regards,
M/s,Luara Jones"

My reply:

"Dear Laura (if that is your real name - I doubt it, since you mis-spell it in the final line of your e-mail)

Ordinarily I would delete shite like this from my e-mail account without reading it, but it is Sunday and I have nothing better to do than fire vitriol at some slack jawed fucktard who is spamming me. So let me point out a few things to you:

1. I don't reply immediately to anyone. Not even friends and family. So it is highly unlikely I would respond to someone so simple mentally that they cannot spell their own name.

2. I don't open attachments from people I do not know. Particularly those who are offering me money.

3. Re: me sending you my private phone number: ha ha ha ha ha. And the idea that I would have a fax number is even more fucking stupid.

4. It is a shame that the money is not from drugs or terrorism. That might make your turgid and frustratingly badly written e-mail a tiny bit interesting.

5. As for being confidential, well, I think that may have gone out the window. I have posted your e-mail on my blog, along with my reply. Thought it might amuse one of my seven readers. As an act of mercy, I have not put your e-mail addresses on there. Rest assured, if you send me this sort of crap again, I will not only publish them on my blog but also write them on the wall of the gents in a couple of dodgy pubs I know, with a suggestion that you like a good time in return for money.

In summary, fuck the fuck off.

Worst regards,
The Nameless Tory (and no, that is not my real name)"

Puerile, pathetic and immature I know. But she/he/it brought it on themselves.

Snakes on a Plane

From BBC news:

"Jackson plays an FBI agent who is escorting an eyewitness to a brutal mob murder on a flight from Hawaii to Los Angeles.

"Chaos breaks out when the crime boss smuggles hundreds of poisonous snakes onto the commercial aircraft inside a crate timed to break open halfway over the Pacific."

Well, that sounds like utter shite, then, doesn't it?

Total Scum

See here - a mother plies her pre-teen son with heroin and crack. And, owing to the actions of the police (not social services, inevitably), she is now going to prison for nine years.

Frankly, may she rot in jail for as long as possible. This woman is total scum. She isn't worthy of the gift of life, let alone being responsible for the life of a child.

And don't give me any wishy-washycrap about her having a problem. Yes, she is/was/may still be for all I care a drug addict. But she chose to be a drug addict, and she chose to give drugs to her child. To be the former is stupid, to do the latter is completely evil.

"Rebecca Upton, defending, said Kelly's descent into drug abuse was triggered by the death of her partner in 1996."

Well, that's alright then, Rebecca, because everyone who loses a partner turns their kid into a junkie. Oh, wait, not they don't. Just your scumbag client. Do you feel dirty when you have to defend people like this, Rebecca?

Before then she had a promising career as a jockey and also worked regularly before developing a dependence on drugs.

Great. Fuck-a-doodle-do. She had a career before feeding her own child drugs. The fact that she failed at a career before she failed at being a mother in one of the worst ways possible makes it all OK again.

Ms Upton said Kelly felt "truly disgusted" at her actions and expressed her "utmost and sincerest remorse".

So she fucking should! What does she want? A shitting medal? She has worked out that she was sub-human scum, and feels sorry for it. Good. I hope she feels paralysed with guilt. I hope she feels suicidal with it all.

There is no excuse for this, no excuse at all. Prison is too good for this woman. Life is wasted on her.

I hope her boy stays healthy, and grows up without his mum, not remembering her or the evil things she did to him.

Ceasefire ramblings

I have a lot to say about Israel and Lebanon agreeing a UN sponsored ceasfire, but it is too difficult to adequately and intelligently write those thoughts down at the moment. So instead I thought I would mock the inane crap spouted by others about the ceasefire. And where better than go that the BBC's Have Your Say? Two comments stand out amongst the hysterical, polemical, and ignorant dross - one from Ali and one from Jeff Smith. Ali starts by saying that the Jews lived together with the Arabs for thousands of years in peace and that is was only the state of Israel that has created the problem. Now, I am 99% sure that is total bollocks, but I am too lazy to do the research to prove Ali wrong at the moment so I will concede the point. What I this is total shite is this:

"Basiclly Europe wiped their hands clean of their own jewish problem (ie they were racist towards the jews for over 200 years) and put it in the middle east."

Ignoring the poor spelling and punctuation, it is highly offensive to talk of a "Jewish problem". We don't speak of a "Muslim problem" in this country, rather a "fundamentalist problem". As for Europe solving their "Jewish problem", I am not convinced that the majority of Europeans had a problem with the Jews. Certain elements in Europe did, certainly, and they had a go at solving their Jewish "problem", and it is one of the darkest times in human history. It is also worth pointing out (1) many Jews wanted to go to the Middle East (and fought for it), what with it being their Holy Land and all, and (2) many Jews still live in Europe - without a "problem". As with so many of the comments about the conflict in the Middle East, there is an ugly reek of Anti-Semitism to what Ali writes.

However Jeff's post deserves the dubious honour of complete reproduction here, partly to marvel at the terrible spelling (Islanic, anyone?) and spacing, but also just to marvel at the nonsense he is spouting. He says:

"Israel wanted rockets to stop and a buffer zone.Hezbollah wanted Sheeba Farms, no more Israel, and a Fundamentalist Islanic state modelled on Iran.Israel 2/2, Hezbollah 0/3.With one side achieving its aims and the other not, peace will not last."

Errrmmmm, no. Israel's war aims were to rescue the kidnapped soldiers and stop Hezbollah chucking missiles into Israel. Read the rest of the news, Jeff. Hezbollah still fired missiles at Israel last night, and the two soldiers are still missing. Neither side has acheieved what they wanted, true, but the assertion that peace will come only when both sides achieve their aims is dense beyond belief. Hezbollah's fundamental aim it to destroy Israel; Israel's core aim is to protect their state and their citizens. One side succeeds and the other fails - there is no compromise, no mutually aggreable solution in what is a fight for survival. There will be no lasting peace as Hezbollah will do all it can to destroy Israel, and the IDF will do all they can to stop them.

Stevens on airline security

Interesting piece in yesterday's News of the Screws from Lord Stevens. By interesting I mean frustrating and irritating, but with one good idea in there.

The head line (IF YOU ARE A MUSLIM - IT'S YOUR PROBLEM!) is needlessly controversial but that is the Screws for you. But read the article, as there is some jaw dropping stupidity and igorance within it. Let's start with the opening lines:

When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?

Erm, a lot of them do.See here for a start. But he goes on -

Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.

Uh-huh, it is the problem of the Muslim communities. But it is also our problem. After all, it was not just Muslims who died on 7/7. And I think the Muslim communities could do with some help from the government - ie by addressing the cultural and economic issues that force young British Muslims into the hands of the extremists.

And there's more -

If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.

I'm sorry, what? Pragmatic and clear sighted? John Reid?!? We are talking about the same person here, right? The scottish thug who has done nothing other than claim his department is crap? Jesus, if this is a breath of fresh air to you then you must have been breathing some fetid fucking air.

He jabbers on -

Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.

Yep, that is interesting. Not neccessarily true though. The IRA was crippled in 9/11 after the US realised terrorism wasn't that much fun anymore and the Americans stopped funding the Irish militants.

And he ends, as you knew he would, by crudely shoving in a plug for ID cards -

Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.

Sweet Jesus give me strength! How would ID cards have helped last Wednesday? In the name of all that is holy, I can't figure that out. And the assertion that the importance of knowing whether people are who they claim to be is wrong on two counts - one, ID cards will be forged, just as driving licences and passports are, and two, I think it was fairly important to know that people are who they say they are was also pretty important in World War Two and in the long war against the IRA.

However, credit where credit is due - he does say something interesting -

I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?

Actually, there is some wisdom in that. Those who have carried out successful suicide attacks in the West in the past have been young(ish) Asian males. Not being funny, but I'm guessing that pattern will continue. But it is the racial nature of the profiling that is wrong. Because if you search every young Asian male it will be the young Asian female who has the liquid explosives in her hand luggage. Or the white recent convert to Islam. So profile based on age more than anything else - martyrs tend to be young (say, 15-35). In a nutshell, airline security should be based on common sense. The 91 year old granny with the walking stick and the crooked smile is unlikely to be a suicide bomber. So is the young, Asian male - but crucially, there is more chance of the latter blowing a jet out of the sky than the former.

We win the War on Terror (if it is actually winnable) by taking sensible, although sometimes unpleasant, security precautions and by helping the ethnic minority communities to deal with the radicals amongst them. We do not win it by abdicating all responsibility and throwing it to the Muslim community and by nonsense policies like ID cards.

Bloody Inbred Constituents

This caught my attention - an MP saying that diabetes in his Norfolk Constituency is caused by inbreeding.

The Moai, who is much more informed that me when it comes to genetics, tells me there is some validity in what Ian Gibson is saying. He says:

'Some places *are* more inbred than others, for cultural or geographical reasons, and there are several well-cited cases of pathologies clearly connected with group inbreeding:

- Cystic fibrosis sufferers are almost exclusively white = mate selection in group
- Sickle cell anaemia = limited to occupants and descendants of malarial endemic areas of Africa = selection pressure + mate selection
- Ashkenazi Jews of Libyan descent have a curiously high level of spongiform encephalopathy
- An abnormally high level of certain genetic pathologies has been spotted in the British Pakistani population, where consanguineous (cousin) marriage is not unknown.'

References here and here.

It is not so much the scientific edge that strikes me but rather the political audacity, or perhaps political incompetence, to say something so crass about the people who elected him. Any politician working in this country knows that there are some facts that you just don't vocalise unless you really have to, and if you have to, you put it in the most ambigious, wishy-washy language so most people don't have a clue what you are talking about and decide they probably wouldn't care even if they did (the Blair Technique, if you like).

Still, good news for the Tories - the 445th safest seat in the UK is probably now the least safe seat in the country, at least whilst Doctor Gibson is the Labour candidate.

A battle won...

It appears, after a series of false alarms and a couple of failures, that the security services have managed to stop a major terrorist attack. Yes there is mass disruption to UK airports but even those caught up in the alert must be thankful for the work that has been done by MI5, MI6 and the police as the alternative is too terrible to think about.

Particularly heartening is this statement from the BBC news website:

'Police had spoken to a "good number of community leaders to make them aware that a major operation was under way," he added.'

The security services are working with Muslims leaders to stop extremists. If the War on Terror is going to be won, it will be like this, not by invading other nations or restricting freedoms in the UK.

But above all we must all be heartened to hear that despite the Middle East descending into war and despite a near catastrophic attack in the country he is meant to be running, our dear leader Tony Blair does not need to cut his holiday short.

Backlash

So Joe Lieberman has lost the nomination for the Senate in the US, and with the loss of that nomination, most probably his Senate seat? Hardly surprising given his close support of the increasingly unpopular Bush and Cheney. That is one of the great things about the US system - Lieberman allied himself far too closely with the Republican administration, so the Democrats reserve their right to give him the chop. If US politicians do not represent their party well enough, they can lose their right to represent that party. And the fall of Lieberman is no mean feat - after all, if it wasn't for the hanging chads in Florida, he would probably be the Vice-President and the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee for 2008.

Of course, Ned Lamont will probably turn out to be one of life's also rans. This could be his greatest moment. But that is not the point - the Democrats were able to exercise their democratic right to decide who will represent their party and potentially their state.

Something we are sadly lacking in this country. There are very few dynamic, recognisable MPs in this country and those in Parliament or aspiring to get into Parliament are mostly shameless sycophants, unable to extract their noses from the anal crevices of whoever is leading their party. Instead of representing their communities and whatever political beliefs they may have, the people standing for election in this country are only looking to appeal to the party whips.

I would like to see more of this happening - the candidates from the major parties being rejected in favour of someone local with a political backbone. Because the only way these parties will change is when someone is threatening their grip on power. And therefore it is the only way we will get some decent politicians to replace the likes of these great representatives. Bollocks to whether you agree with what they said, at least they had something to say other than the party line.

Applications...

As mentioned in my last post, I have put in an ever so slightly tongue-in-cheek application to be the Labour Party Conference blogger. Here is the e-mail I sent:

"Name: The Nameless Tory
Address: thenamelesst@yahoo.co.uk
Phone Number: heh heh good try.
Blog: http://theappallingstrangeness.blogspot.com/
Reason: Well, if that misanthropic, foul mouthed ex-drunk Alastair Campbell can blog for Labour, surely anyone can? Besides, the novelty of having someone who calls themselves the Nameless Tory reporting on the Labour Conference should deflect some media attention from the spectacle of Blair desperately clinging to power. And I promise to be quieter that Walter Wolfgang..."

Less punchy than Guido, but I still like it.

Next time on The Appalling Strangeness: The Nameless Tory applies to be Tory candidate for Mayor of London. Or, failing that, Lib Dem leader.

I am going to enter this...

...http://www.labour.org.uk/blogatconference

Chances of me getting a reply? Square root of bugger all.

Re-Writing History

Even though he is portraying Winston Churchill, Mel Smith is not allowed to smoke a cigar on stage. I could rant on about this for hours, but instead I will direct you to an eloquent piece on the subject here.

But it does lead me to wonder where this all ends. Perhaps, if Churchill cannot be depicted smoking on stage, he shouldn't be depicted smoking anywhere. Perhaps we should rewrite history to change the hard smoking, hard drinking, manic depressive Churchill into a sober, non-smoking, happy go lucky vegan. He was also overweight, wasn't he? And that is not allowed anymore. So join me, brothers and sisters, let us rewrite history and change the Greatest Briton into a figure we do not recognise anymore. Anyone with decent IT skills - please get started on changing the way Churchill is depicted in all those photos. Let is change history and make it politically correct!*

Seem to remember Stalin liked re-writing history to match his own very limited version of history as well.

*Anyone who cannot see the irony in this needs to move on and read a different blog.

Which West Wing Character Are You?

Ahh, the ever-cynical and sarcastic speechwriter. Gutsy and not afraid to speak up or clash with authority, his dry wit is amusing. But under it all he's just a big teddy bear... and the world's biggest Yankees fan.

:: Which West Wing character are you? ::

Spot on, actually.